Son of man had indeed come, with power and glory, and been brought near to the Ancient of Days,-the Jew was quibbling about the forms of the faith, giving heed to fables and endless genealogies, trying to resist the progress of ideas, and to limit the grace of God.

Thus the Jew became the type of all who in every age of the Church are by their education, their mental habits, their strong dispositions, disposed to lay violent stress on the external sign, on the tangible symbol, on the sacramental test, on the old tradition, on the long-maintained and accepted dogma, even to the exclusion of the realities which are indicated by them. He was in St. Paul's day a prophetic picture of the great multitude of Christian people, who though they may have life in Christ, and though they are alive to God through Jesus Christ, yet rest on the symbol, on the thing, on the supernatural portent, on the external evidence, on the appeal to the senses, on the infallible authority of Church or Creed or Bible, and are disposed to exclude from their fellowship, to denounce as unchristian or ungodly, those who do not and cannot see with them eye to eye, face to face. Without that which is to them the great warrant and stimulus of faith, they would be tossed on the hopeless sea of doubt; and those who are not guided by them, sheltered with them in this one ark, whatever be its form, they regard as suicidal shipwrecked mariners, hopelessly doomed to eternal perdition.

Now let us look at the other great type of intellectual character-the Greek. The term, even in the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere in the New Testament, meant more than a Gentile proselyte to the faith of Christ; and the word 'Grecian' or 'Hellenist' meant more than a Greek-speaking Jew. It is capable of proof that there was in Judaism a Grecized party even before the time of our Lord, and it is quite clear that the Grecian converts to the faith of Jesus were rather characterized by the freshness of their ideas, the freedom of their speculations, the liberty which they claimed from oppressive rite and ceremonial, than by their mother-tongue. No classes of mind could be more directly opposed and dissimilar in their modes of working than those of the pure Jew and pure Greek. To Jewish conservatism the Greek opposed an incessant love of change; to the Jewish love of tradition and dependence upon the wisdom of the ancients the Greek offered endless speculation and elaborate guesses after truth; instead of the Jewish dogma the Greek luxuriated in the last logical puzzle. By the side of the stern exclusiveness of the Jewish Monotheism, the Greek prided himself in a Pantheon of deities, who were admitted on equal and easy terms to the reverence of the Hellenes. The mind of the Jew was hampered in its philosophical researches by a language of great metrical power, but of comparative rigidity of movement and excessive externality and objectivity; the Greek used the most flexible and delicate instrument of thought which human

minds had ever fashioned. The Jew accepted the supernatural with child-like simplicity, and asked eagerly for more; the Greek sought after the causes of things, the meaning of words, the essence of government, the unseen and intangible realities. It is not a wonderful thing that St. Paul should have said, “The Jew requires a sign, the Greek seeks after wisdom." The unrestrained liberty of the Greek was not without its serious dangers, when it was brought by Divine Grace within the limit of the true Church. He who had never kept a Sabbath, might be slow to understand any way of entering into God's rest; he who had always fashioned his dogmas and philosophy for himself, might find it difficult to accept any truth which he could not verify; he whose scepticism of error and superstition amounted to a passion, might become flippant and unbelieving in face of the great mysteries of life and revelation; he who was accustomed to try and reduce to the forms of his philosophy all his passions and his ideas, would be tempted, as were Greek theologians in the first ages of the Church, to try and explain and define the transcendental facts of the holy religion of Jesus, until Christian doctrine was overlaid with a thick incrustation of philosophic speculation and angry debate.

The Greek, in the Churches of Galatia and Corinth and Rome, was a striking type of the class of Christian men at the present time, whose mental constitution, habits, and education almost lead them

in their hatred of superstition to discourage faith, and to denounce the letter, and the body, and the form of truth so harshly, as to shatter the costly vase which contains its fragrant essence; who are so well satisfied with the lean results of human reason as to resist the voice of the Eternal Word; whose positive science leaves no place for the revelation of truth to the world; who are so eager in their maintenance of personal freedom, and conscience, and responsibility as to become utterly isolated in their judgments. If the two types of mental character of which I have spoken be found within the Church of Christ, we may expect sharp and sustained antagonism. Even regeneration will not change these grave and fundamental differences of mental constitution. How difficult must it ever prove for these two kinds of men to feel the deep-hidden unity which is possible between them! To put the matter in a concrete form, how difficult for one who imagines religious life to be inseparably associated with form, ceremonial, priesthood, sacraments, liturgies, elaborate dogmatic creeds and transcendental propositions, even to believe in the Christianity of another, whose only notion of it is a holy life, free from all these restraints; who thinks, speculates, philosophizes, and tries to prove all things, and only to hold fast that which is good! Verily, if these tendencies are left to themselves unchecked and unchastised, very distant will be the day when Jew and Greek shall be one.

I must describe with greater brevity the two other

classifications which the Apostle makes of our humanity.

II. The second of them is, the great constitutional and emotional difference of character expressed by the antithesis of male and female. It is not merely the difference of sex of which the Apostle is speaking, but rather of the great types of character, which though not confined to either sex are best expressed by the terms masculine and feminine. By masculine character we mean the predominance over the passions of reason and conscience, the energy of will, the submission to law, the conscious pride of independence, strength, selfsufficiency, robust and vigorous life. By feminine character, whether seen in woman or man, we mean the predominance of the affections, the delight of dependence, the unreasoning consciousness of right, the strength of submission, the power of suffering, selfsacrifice, and waiting. In the one there is more power to act, in the other to endure. The strength of the one is energy, and of the other is rest. Both may be led to do what is good; but the one because it is right, and the other because it is lovely. The one looks at religion as a system of principles, the other as the expression of deep feelings. The one sees no religion in mere states of mind, devotional postures, strong sentiments; and the other cannot understand the religion of mere principle and energy. The one is roused to action by the records of the conflict of David or Paul, and rises from the perusal of the struggles of